Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rockefeller Vs. Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc.

Rockefeller vs Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc.

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1970
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/102704

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
397 U.S. 820
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rockefeller

Respondent

Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc.

Excerpt

rockefeller v. catholic medical center of brooklyn & queens, inc. - 397 u.s. 820 (1970) u.s. supreme court rockefeller v. catholic medical center of brooklyn & queens, inc. , 397 u.s. 820 (1970) 397 u.s. 820 nelson a. rockefeller, governor of new york, et al. v. catholic medical center of brooklyn & queens, inc., division of st. mary's hospital, et al. no. 1379. supreme court of the united states may 4, 1970 louis j. lefkowitz, atty. gen. of new york, samuel a. hirshowitz, first asst. atty. gen., and george d. zuckerman and lloyd g. milliken, asst. attys. gen., for appellants. james m. hartman and richard l. epstein, for appellees. per curiam. the judgment appealed from does not include an order granting or denying an interlocutory or permanent injunction and is therefore not appealable to this court under 28 u.s.c. 1253. see goldstein v. cox, 396 u.s. 471 . the judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded to that court so that it may enter a fresh decree from which timely appeal may be taken to the court of appeals. see stamler v. willis, 393 u.s. 407 . mr. justice douglas concurs in the result.[ rockefeller v. catholic medical center of brooklyn & queens, inc. 397 u.s. 820 (1970) ]

Full Judgment

ROCKEFELLER v. CATHOLIC MEDICAL CENTER OF BROOKLYN & QUEENS, INC. - 397 U.S. 820 (1970)
U.S. Supreme Court ROCKEFELLER v. CATHOLIC MEDICAL CENTER OF BROOKLYN & QUEENS, INC. , 397 U.S. 820 (1970)

397 U.S. 820

Nelson A. ROCKEFELLER, Governor of New York, et al.
v.
CATHOLIC MEDICAL CENTER OF BROOKLYN & QUEENS, INC., Division of St. Mary's Hospital, et al.
No. 1379.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 4, 1970

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Asst. Atty. Gen., and George D. Zuckerman and Lloyd G. Milliken, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellants.

James M. Hartman and Richard L. Epstein, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed from does not include an order granting or denying an interlocutory or permanent injunction and is therefore not appealable to this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1253. See Goldstein v. Cox, 396 U.S. 471 . The judgment of the District Court is vacated and the case is remanded to that court so that it may enter a fresh decree from which timely appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals. See Stamler v. Willis, 393 U.S. 407 .

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS concurs in the result.[ Rockefeller v. Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn & Queens, Inc. 397 U.S. 820 (1970) ]

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial